Quote of the Day
Our research shows firearm owners are more likely to adopt safe and secure storage practices when they can choose from a range of devices that meet their needs, such as biometric safes for quick access or cable locks for hunting rifles.
Remember, safe storage saves lives. Every gun, every time.
Katherine Hoops
MD, MPH ’10, JD
Director of clinical programs and practice at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions.
Johns Hopkins University Partners with Baltimore Libraries for Safe Gun Storage Distribution | Center for Gun Violence Solutions
Yesterday I told you that our front line has moved forward.
It used to be John Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions was fighting for more gun bans, carry restrictions, and more oppressive red-flag laws. It makes me smile to see their front line has been pushed back to wistful thinking of mandatory safe storage.
Safe storage is a nice idea, unless it is the gun hater version of safe storage, which really amounts to “disabled storage”. If you’re required to store your weapon separate from the ammo, as was (or is?) the rule in DC, that translates to “you’re not allowed to have a weapon suitable for self defense”.
Yep. Safe storage laws were struck down in Heller because such provisions make it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self defense in their homes.
The safest place for a loaded gun is on your person. No one including children can sneak in and get their hands on it. It is secure and where you need it if it is required.
The only difference between open and concealed is they can’t see it. They don’t need to no one needs to.
They can fight for mandatory “safe storage” (which as pkoning points out, usually equates to “disabled storage”), but their own research and statements show that a voluntary, free-market solution — “choos[ing] from a range of devices that meet their needs” — is more likely to achieve their goals WITHOUT a law making it mandatory.
Another topic on which I believe they’d see a similar phenomenon is training. Mandate expensive training, and prospective gun owners will begrudgingly take it because it’s required. But encourage training and certify enough trainers in enough different types of classes (hunter education, personal defense in the home, general marksmanship, competition prep, etc., that ALL emphasize firearm safety) that training becomes inexpensive, convenient, and widely available, and I’m sure they’d find that prospective gun owners willingly take classes even if they’re not mandated.
There’s almost always a common-sense, free-market solution to meet “gun safety” advocates’ stated goals that DOESN’T require restrictive laws.
That they continue to push for restrictive and unnecessary laws makes one wonder, what are their REAL goals?
“That they continue to push for restrictive and unnecessary laws makes one wonder, what are their REAL goals?”
I can’t always tell, though it’s clear there is one.
The one I’ve been wondering about recently is related to “safe storage”. There have been radio ads for the last couple of years (give or take) talking about it, with some sob story on the front…
The problem is, nearly every single “sob story” wouldn’t have been affected by “safe storage” at all! Most of them are suicide stories, by adults – the most common 2 are for men *in the military*, who would certainly have access to weapons. If the weapon was “stored safely” (and there’s not even any evidence that it wasn’t), they would still have complete access to the weapon.
So, as you said, there’s clearly some other agenda going on… I just can’t figure out what it is.
(I am tired of having my intelligence insulted every time they run one of those ads, though.)
The goal is to poke you with a sharp stick. No more no less.
Safe storage is situational. I live alone now so I really only have to worry about theft and change behavior when the grandkids are there. When the kids were children, I was more careful. While I was confident that my girls would be safe, I could not vouch for their friends who might be in the house when I wasn’t.
I keep my firearms that I’m not carrying split between gun safes. One of my pistols is always plenty safe in the holster where I carry it everywhere excel bed and the shower. Then it sits holstered on the bedside table or bathroom counter. Real carry pistols should be stainless steel for a reason…
I bought a safe with a nifty fingerprint reader for “safe storage” and rapid access. I was rather pleased until the reader crapped out six months later.
Well, the ‘Gun Safety’ argument they have been pushing since-forever- doesn’t really have anything to do with the Codified ‘Four Laws’ of Gun Safety.
At a tangent to this I’d love to see a Federal law mandating that any Federal, State, or Municipal government building which banned the carrying of arms (due to being a “sensitive space” must provide individual storage lockers WITHOUT requiring ID. I’m thinking a wall filled with those motel room type electronic safes, where the user sets the combination each time they lock the safe.
Ideally we should be able to carry everywhere, but I doubt we’ll get that changed for courtrooms, jails, ect any time soon. This would at least eliminate the unarmed state when walking to and from your car when you had occasion to enter these areas.
The left: they want you disarmed.
They also think Lindsay Clancy was the real victim.
They like people to be defenseless against psychos for some reason.
Because they ARE psychos.
That’s incorrect.
Like Lindsay Clancy, they are completely sane, and utterly, totally evil.
We need to stop bragging about how nonviolent we are, and instead remove these cancers.
IF the can legally MANDATE safe storage then they can legally MANDATE anything else they decide needs to be mandated. It’s a “nose of the camel” tactic. Should we practice safe storage habits? Yes. But allowing them to MANDATE them gives them a wedge to expand their efforts to control.